and intuition, our balanced ethical virtues and our quest of God, our hunger for aloneness with God in the ecstasy of meditation (III, 51), and our eagerness to redeem the world by deeds of justice and compassion. (Ill, 52—54.)
M.’s teaching in regard to the meaning of faith and its decisive role in the trans-logical realm is applied in Neo-Maimonism to the issue of God’s existence, not merely the creation of the world. Defining God as the Perfect Personality, the ultimate Whole in an evolutionary holistic-mechanical cosmos, we cannot demonstrate with mathematical logic that God does indeed exist. We point to the marvelous ladders of evolution, in which wholes of ever greater complexity and range of freedom have come into being. The appearance of the human mind marked the emergence of a new phase of holism—conscious, deliberate, multi-dimensional, creative. In the geniuses of art, ethics, science, statecraft and religion, new phases of spirit are briefly glimpsed. All great achievements well up into the conscious mind of their own accord, as it were, like invasions from a sea of Super-Spirit, when the dikes are lowered, or like bolts of lightning, illuminating the dark night. The mysteries of life, mind and flashes of genius point toward the possibility of divine thrusts, impelling us toward perfection. Indeed, we perceive, however dimly, intimations of the supreme source of all values in our ethical deeds, esthetic apprehensions and experiences of holiness. But, we cannot prove that the theistic hypothesis is true.
Still, and here we touch bases with M., our inner aspirations for growth in the realms of the spirit impel us to choose that view of the cosmos, in which Spirit, Freedom and creative Growth triumph over the dead entropy of matter. Our faith in God is an extension of “the lines of growth” in our personality—our hunger for justice, our thirst for beauty, our longing for truth, our experience of holiness, when we sense the cosmic resonance of eternity. Faith is the fragmentary arc within our being, extrapolated into an invisible, eternal circle. It is the outward reach of our entire being; hence, it cannot be unreasoning, or immoral, or blind. It becomes demonic when it sets itself over against the moral, or the rational, pretending to go “beyond good and evil.” It is the whole of our self orienting itself toward and seeking support from that all-embracing Self, of which our minds are but so many cells. And faith, as M. points out, is not a steady, static condition. It is rather a tremor of the soul, an assurance and an inquiry, at one and the same time.
REVELATION
While prophecy is the central theme of the “Guide,” the novelty of M.’s contribution consists in his tri-partite division of revelation. He discusses first two pre-prophetic stages, along with other proto-prophetic phenomena; second, various stages of prophecy, the highest being that of Abraham; third, the super-prophetic quality of Mosaic revelation. In this way, the Torah of Moses is placed within the generally human context of inspired achievements and noble visions. The act of revelation is a quantum-extension of human perception, not the incursion of a totally foreign element.
Proto-prophetic are the diviners and the inventors, who discover new inventions intuitively, without any understanding of scientific and mathematical principles. (II, 38.) Their imagination and dedication are stimulated by the flow from Active Reason, enabling them to create instruments of human progress. Philosophers and scientists are also proto-prophetic, with their fresh visions of reality arising out of an inflow of Active Reason. However, in their case, the imaginative and intuitive faculties are short of perfection. (II, 37.) And the logic of the mind, however great it be, cannot suffice to reflect faithfully the total import of the divine thrust, which affects ideally man’s entire personality.
The prophet is one whose imaginative, intuitive and rational faculties are all fully developed. Yet, even in his case, moments of genuine revelation occur infrequently. True, the good God is ever ready to grant His impulsions of goodness and wisdom. Though He is free to withhold His gift, He, in His Goodness, is ever ready to uplift men. But, even the noblest prophet can rise to the requisite levels of perfection only on a few occasions. Moses was far superior to all other prophets; indeed, he was unique and incomparable. Still, Moses was incapable of reaching the heights of prophecy during 3 8 of the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness. (II, 36.)
M. lists two pre-prophetic stages that great men may reach. Both are characterized by the influx of the Holy Spirit (ruah hakodesh). (II, 45 & II, 41.) In the first case this influx is manifested in great deeds, accomplished by leaders who are fired with the determination to redeem an oppressed people or to advance the cause of mankind. In the second case, the Divine power is employed to compose great works of inspiration and wisdom—such as, the Writings (kethubim) of Holy Scriptures.
Taking the proto-prophetic and the pre-prophetic stages together, we have here a conception of revelation that embraces all that makes for the advancement of mankind, unifying religion with the several branches of culture. Revelation is a thrust toward higher levels of holiness, in the life of the individual and of society. And the culmination of this advance will be attained in the messianic era, when material prosperity will be conjoined with ethical maturity and religious truth.15
In these stages of ruah hakodesh we are given a theory of universal progress, since philosophers, poets and cultural heroes address themselves to all mankind. We recall that, in M.’s view, Aristotelian philosophy was itself an integral part of the esoteric wisdom of the prophets and sages. His interpretation of the Noachide principles as a body of “general revelation” fits into his scheme of an all-embracing philosophy of culture, consisting of artistic achievements and ethical principles intended for all men along with the Torah designed for the Jewish people.
If we now skip across the nine specific stages of prophecy and examine M.’s concept of the prophecy of Moses, we find that he takes pains to stress its radically dogmatic character. Everything said about other prophets and prophecy in general, he tells us, does not apply to Mosaic revelation. (II, 35; II, 39.) Since his original problem was to reconcile the Torah of Moses, not merely prophecy in general, with the dictates of philosophy, it is certainly paradoxical that he exempts Moses from the normal category of prophets. Evidently, another principle is here involved, and we shall discuss it presently.
At this point, we note that the biblical prophets occupied the middle ground between the “general revelation” of the pre- and proto-prophets and the post- or super-prophetic status of Moses. (II, 45.) While the prophets admonished the people to be loyal to the Torah of Moses, they dared to be extremely selective in their emphasis, as if they were authorized to weigh and measure the various mizvot. In regard to the sacrifices and the choice of Israel, they distinguished between the Primary Intention of God and His Secondary Intention. (Ill, 32.) Accordingly they chided the people for their ethnic zeal and their preoccupation with sacrifices, pointing out that the ultimate aims of God were the same as in “general revelations”—namely, the ethical virtues of personal life and the perfection of society. So, while the spectrum of revelation ranges from the general principles of faith to the specific ordinances of Torah, it is basically the same phenomenon.
Why, then, does M. put Mosaic prophecy in a category all its own? In the first place, he was compelled to follow the teaching of Bible and Talmud, on this point. In terms of his own philosophy of prophecy, Moses is unique because there was no admixture of imagination in his teaching. (II, 36.) But strangely enough, M. states it as a rule that the prophet is superior to the philosopher, precisely because the latter lacks the qualities of imagination and intuition. (II, 37.) Evidently, in terms of prophetic receptivity, the more the imagination is developed, the better, but in terms of the content of prophetic revelation, the less it is enveloped by the fancies of imagination, the better. The role of the prophet is to serve as the “channel,” whereby the divine uplifting thrust is conveyed to mankind. To this end, imagination or intuition is essential, since the prophet, in distinction from the philosopher, addresses himself to an entire community, which is more likely to be affected by rites and symbols than by ideals and ideas. However, the inner content of revelation can be discovered only by penetrating through the poetic imagery of prophecy and isolating its rational content. The Primary Intention, say, of the sacrificial ritual, described in the Torah, is the purpose of the Divine Will. The Secondary Intention was the “cunning” of Providence in leading Israel